Hey Willy, On 4/19/2016 12:24 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Your patch looks fine but I'm a bit bothered by the choice of the syntax > here which is neither really intuitive nor future-proof. I even suspect > you had some head-scratching before coming to this.
That was the hardest part actually :) I didn't want to add complexity to the parser there, but maybe it's time to do it as we'll probably want to add more and more features. > > At least I'd have found it more natural to use "10c" than "10m" to specific > a connection limit but anyway that's still something we might regret over > the long term. Thus, what do you think about using a completely different > syntax such as "maxconn:10" or "maxconn=10" ? It would allow to seamlessly > extend the language without breaking compatibility with existing products. I like the "maxconn:10" more, but if you think "=" is better, I'll do it that way. > > On a side note, there is something important to mention in the documentation > which is a side effect of doing this that most people do not realize. It > currently affects protocols like ICAP. It's the fact that when a server > advertises a maxconn to all of its clients (here the load balancers), it > ends up with N times the expected maxconn. > > Thus I think we must make it very clear that the advertised value must > absolutely be understood as *per load balancer*. Maybe in the future we'll > want to support different words depending on whether we advertise the > total maxconn the server supports or the per-client one (for when front > LBs know how many they are). OK, will mention that. I'll send a new patch soon(ish). > > Thanks, > Willy > Regards, Nenad
